In order for the two features listed above to be really present, political scientists generally agree that six things have to be true of a polity:

1. Elected officials govern.
2. These must be chosen in free and fair elections.
3. Rights of citizenship, including the right to run for office and the right to vote, must be broadly inclusive.
4. There must be broad freedom of the press.
5. Citizens must have the right to access alternative sources of information, and such sources must exist.
6. There must be broad freedom to organize autonomously from the state. This is especially important with respect to the right to organize politically in movements and political parties for the purpose of contesting power.

Which of these are true of Cuba? From your report, it is evident that only the first condition is met in Cuba today.
* Elections are not free and fair–they are not even competitive elections at all.
* The right to run for office is limited to those approved by incumbent officials after meeting ideological and other tests.
* There is no freedom of the press.
* There is no right to access alternative sources of information.
* There is no right to organize politically.

To suggest that there is democracy in Cuba today is intellectually irresponsible.

Where democracy exists in the world, it is invariably flawed. To suggest that because democracy is flawed in the United States (or Canada, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, etc.), this puts these polities on equal footing with the complete absence of political democracy in Cuba is a fallacy of the first order.

This article wrests credibility from the COHA, reflecting very poorly on the ability of your organization to provide useful analysis of hemispheric affairs.

Keep up the good work guys.

Cuba has a more systematically rigged nominating system than that, plus a far more profound lack of choice, plus a far more stringent control on information.

The US and Cuban electoral systems are not “equally troubled.” Cuba is farther from full political democracy.

This is not to say that the US system should be imported into Cuba or that the Miami exiles should be allowed to participate in Cuba’s decisions about which way to go. The obvious ways to go are to have direct, contested elections at all levels, under conditions that at a minimum require the freeing of political prisoners, the legalization of independent media, an open nominating process and time for people to assimilate and prepare for these changes so that different factions of society can organize and a reasonable transition can happen in case a group other than the presently ruling one wins.

I could see the Communist Party losing a fair and open election, but I doubt they’d get wiped off the map. I also doubt that anybody running on a “bring back the Miami exiles to take over their parents’ and grandparents’ property and privileges” platform would do well.

Just a few profound reforms, leaving Cuba with something like its present framework of non-partisan elections, might allow Cuba to all of a sudden be far more democratic than the United States. But of course, if they tried to move quickly in that direction while George W. Bush was still president of the United States the Cubans would be under tremendous undemocratic manipulative pressures. Maybe Dubya’s successor would be more hands-off, maybe not.

Progressive people ought to defend Cuba’s sovereignty against Washington’s would-be impositions, but that’s not the same thing as pretending that Cuba is a democracy that respects all of the internationally recognized fundamental freedoms. It isn’t and it doesn’t.